View this case and other resources at:
Citation. 22 Ill.343 Ill. App. 281, 99 N.E.2d 23 (App. Ct. 1951)
Brief Fact Summary. Defendant placed a clause in a contract to prohibit assignments. The Plaintiff, who did not breach the contract with the Defendant, entered into an agreement with a third party for the purchase of the land from Plaintiff, who was to receive a deed upon payment of one-half the purchase price. Facts.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Covenants against assignments are strictly construed in order to prevent forfeitures.
Defendant, a vendor of land under an executory sales contract with Plaintiff, placed in the contract a clause prohibiting assignments. It further stated that if an assignment was made by the vendee without written consent of vendor, it was a nullity. The Plaintiff, who did not breach the contract with the Defendant, entered into an agreement with a third party for the purchase of the land from Plaintiff, who was to receive a deed upon payment of one-half the purchase price. The Defendant claimed that the contract was void due to the alleged assignment, and that all monies paid by Plaintiff up until that point would be retained as liquidated damages. The Plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform under the contract and made tender of the amount due, which would trigger the deed conveyance subject to the contract. The Plaintiff filed suit and requested a temporary injunction to restrain Defendant from forfeiting monies paid by the Plaintiff under the contract. Plaintiff a
lso requested that the original contract remain in full force and effect, and that he be granted specific performance. The trial court issued the temporary injunction, and the Defendant took an interlocutory appeal to have the temporary injunction lifted. Issue.
Is the Plaintiff entitled to a temporary injunction?